FIRST DIVISION

THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 187567
Petitioner,
Present:

- versus -
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
NORA FE SAGUN,
BERSAMIN,
Respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

Promulgated:

February 15, 2012

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Solicitor

General on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, seeking the reversal of the
April 3, 2009 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, of
Baguio City in Spcl. Pro. Case No. 17-R. The RTC granted the petition[2] filed
by respondent Nora Fe Sagun entitled “In re: Judicial Declaration of Election
of Filipino Citizenship, Nora Fe Sagun v. The Local Civil Registrar of Baguio
City.”

The facts follow:

 Respondent is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a Chinese national,
and Marta Borromeo, a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in
Baguio City[3] and did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting married to Alex Sagun, she
executed an Oath of Allegiance[4] to the Republic of the Philippines. Said
document was notarized by Atty. Cristeta Leung on December 17, 1992, but
was not recorded and registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City.

Sometime in September 2005, respondent applied for a Philippine

passport. Her application was denied due to the citizenship of her father and
there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine
citizenship. Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of
Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City
be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate.

In her petition, respondent averred that she was raised as a Filipino,

speaks Ilocano and Tagalog fluently and attended local schools in Baguio City,
including Holy Family Academy and the Saint Louis University. Respondent
claimed that despite her part-Chinese ancestry, she always thought of herself as
a Filipino. She is a registered voter of Precinct No. 0419A of Barangay Manuel
A. Roxas in Baguio City and had voted in local and national elections as shown
in the Voter Certification[5] issued by Atty. Maribelle Uminga of the
Commission on Elections of Baguio City.

She asserted that by virtue of her positive acts, she has effectively elected
Philippine citizenship and such fact should be annotated on her record of birth
so as to entitle her to the issuance of a Philippine passport.

On August 7, 2007, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
appearance as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and authorized the
City Prosecutor of Baguio City to appear in the above mentioned
case.[6] However, no comment was filed by the City Prosecutor.

After conducting a hearing, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision
on April 3, 2009 granting the petition and declaring respondent a Filipino
citizen. The fallo of the decision reads:
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner
Nora Fe Sagun y Chan is hereby DECLARED [a] FILIPINO CITIZEN,
having chosen or elected Filipino citizenship.

Upon payment of the required fees, the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio
City is hereby directed to annotate [on] her birth certificate, this judicial
declaration of Filipino citizenship of said petitioner.
[7]
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Contending that the lower court erred in so ruling, petitioner, through the
OSG, directly filed the instant recourse via a petition for review
on certiorari before us. Petitioner raises the following issues:
I

Whether or not an action or proceeding for judicial declaration of

Philippine citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally permissible; and,

II

Whether or not an election of Philippine citizenship, made twelve (12)

years after reaching the age of majority, is considered to have been made
[8]
“within a reasonable time” as interpreted by jurisprudence.

Petitioner argues that respondent’s petition before the RTC was improper
on two counts: for one, law and jurisprudence clearly contemplate no judicial
action or proceeding for the declaration of Philippine citizenship; and for
another, the pleaded registration of the oath of allegiance with the local civil
registry and its annotation on respondent’s birth certificate are the ministerial
duties of the registrar; hence, they require no court order. Petitioner asserts that
respondent’s petition before the trial court seeking a judicial declaration of her
election of Philippine citizenship undeniably entails a determination and
consequent declaration of her status as a Filipino citizen which is not allowed
under our legal system. Petitioner also argues that if respondent’s intention in
filing the petition is ultimately to have her oath of allegiance registered with the
local civil registry and annotated on her birth certificate, then she does not have
to resort to court proceedings.

Petitioner further argues that even assuming that respondent’s action is

sanctioned, the trial court erred in finding respondent as having duly elected
Philippine citizenship since her purported election was not in accordance with
the procedure prescribed by law and was not made within a “reasonable
time.” Petitioner points out that while respondent executed an oath of
allegiance before a notary public, there was no affidavit of her election of
Philippine citizenship. Additionally, her oath of allegiance which was not
registered with the nearest local civil registry was executed when she was
already 33 years old or 12 years after she reached the age of
majority. Accordingly, it was made beyond the period allowed by law.

In her Comment,[9] respondent avers that notwithstanding her failure to

formally elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, she has in
fact effectively elected Filipino citizenship by her performance of positive acts,
among which is the exercise of the right of suffrage. She claims that she had
voted and participated in all local and national elections from the time she was
of legal age. She also insists that she is a Filipino citizen despite the fact that her
“election” of Philippine citizenship was delayed and unregistered.

In reply,[10] petitioner argues that the special circumstances invoked by

respondent, like her continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, her
having been educated in schools in the country, her choice of staying here
despite the naturalization of her parents as American citizens, and her being a
registered voter, cannot confer on her Philippine citizenship as the law
specifically provides the requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship
by election.

Essentially, the issues for our resolution are: (1) whether respondent’s
petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship is sanctioned by
the Rules of Court and jurisprudence; (2) whether respondent has effectively
elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
law.

The petition is meritorious.

At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court

from the decisions, final resolutions and orders of the RTC may be taken where
only questions of law are raised or involved. There is a question of
law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts, which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a
question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of
whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of
law.[11]

In the present case, petitioner assails the propriety of the decision of the
trial court declaring respondent a Filipino citizen after finding that respondent
was able to substantiate her election of Filipino citizenship. Petitioner contends
that respondent’s petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine
citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally impermissible. Verily, petitioner
has raised questions of law as the resolution of these issues rest solely on what
the law provides given the attendant circumstances.

In granting the petition, the trial court stated:

This Court believes that petitioner was able to fully substantiate her
petition regarding her election of Filipino citizenship, and the Local Civil
Registrar of Baguio City should be ordered to annotate in her birth certificate
her election of Filipino citizenship. This Court adds that the petitioner’s
election of Filipino citizenship should be welcomed by this country and people
because the petitioner has the choice to elect citizenship of powerful countries
like the United States of America and China, however, petitioner has chosen
Filipino citizenship because she grew up in this country, and has learned to
love the Philippines. Her choice of electing Filipino citizenship is, in fact, a
testimony that many of our people still wish to live in the Philippines, and are
very proud of our country.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner

Nora Fe Sagun y Chan is hereby DECLARED as FILIPINO CITIZEN, having
[12]
chosen or elected Filipino citizenship.

For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that there is no proceeding
established by law, or the Rules for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of
an individual.[13] There is no specific legislation authorizing the institution of a
judicial proceeding to declare that a given person is part of our
citizenry.[14] This was our ruling in Yung Uan Chu v. Republic[15] citing the
early case of Tan v. Republic of the Philippines,[16] where we clearly stated:

Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial

declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice exist for

 settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given right, legally

demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a

remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident

only of the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court

may pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to their status. Otherwise,

such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power. x x x

Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a specific declaration
of respondent’s Filipino citizenship as such pronouncement was not within the
court’s competence.

As to the propriety of respondent’s petition seeking a judicial declaration

of election of Philippine citizenship, it is imperative that we determine whether
respondent is required under the law to make an election and if so, whether she
has complied with the procedural requirements in the election of Philippine
citizenship.

When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing charter was
the 1935 Constitution, which declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose
mothers are citizens of the Philippines and elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority. Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

xxxx

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.

Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of
a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the
citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child
elected Philippine citizenship. The right to elect Philippine citizenship was
recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it provided that “[t]hose who elect
Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen
hundred and thirty-five” are citizens of the Philippines.[17] Likewise, this
recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried over to the 1987
Constitution which states that “[t]hose born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” are
Philippine citizens.[18] It should be noted, however, that the 1973 and 1987
Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citizenship should not be
understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition of
citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. If the citizenship of a
person was subject to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to
challenge under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been
commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution.[19]

Being a legitimate child, respondent’s citizenship followed that of her

father who is Chinese, unless upon reaching the age of majority, she elects
Philippine citizenship. It is a settled rule that only legitimate children follow the
citizenship of the father and that illegitimate children are under the parental
authority of the mother and follow her nationality.[20] An illegitimate child of
Filipina need not perform any act to confer upon him all the rights and
privileges attached to citizens of the Philippines; he automatically becomes a
citizen himself.[21] But in the case of respondent, for her to be considered a
Filipino citizen, she must have validly elected Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625,[22] enacted pursuant to Section 1(4),

Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be
followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine citizenship, to wit:
Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with subsection (4), [S]ection 1, Article IV, of the Constitution shall be
expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned
before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement
with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines.

Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of electing Philippine

citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance
to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3) registration of
the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry.[23]
 Furthermore, no election of Philippine citizenship shall be accepted for
registration under C.A. No. 625 unless the party exercising the right of election
has complied with the requirements of the Alien Registration Act of 1950. In
other words, he should first be required to register as an alien.[24] Pertinently,
the person electing Philippine citizenship is required to file a petition with the
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration) for
the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration based on his aforesaid
election of Philippine citizenship and said Office will initially decide, based on
the evidence presented the validity or invalidity of said election.[25] Afterwards,
the same is elevated to the Ministry (now Department) of Justice for final
determination and review.[26]

It should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule

which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of
Philippine citizenship before the courts. The special proceeding provided under
Section 2, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Civil Registry, merely allows any interested party to file an action
for cancellation or correction of entry in the civil registry, i.e., election, loss and
recovery of citizenship, which is not the relief prayed for by the respondent.

Be that as it may, even if we set aside this procedural infirmity, still the
trial court’s conclusion that respondent duly elected Philippine citizenship is
erroneous since the records undisputably show that respondent failed to comply
with the legal requirements for a valid election. Specifically, respondent had
not executed a sworn statement of her election of Philippine citizenship. The
only documentary evidence submitted by respondent in support of her claim of
alleged election was her oath of allegiance, executed 12 years after she reached
the age of majority, which was unregistered. As aptly pointed out by the
petitioner, even assuming arguendo that respondent’s oath of allegiance
suffices, its execution was not within a reasonable time after respondent attained
the age of majority and was not registered with the nearest civil registry as
required under Section 1 of C.A. No. 625. The phrase “reasonable time” has
been interpreted to mean that the election should be made generally within three
(3) years from reaching the age of majority.[27] Moreover, there was no
satisfactory explanation proffered by respondent for the delay and the failure to
register with the nearest local civil registry.
 Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to
comply with the procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of
Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage
and the participation in election exercises constitutes a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the requirements for
acquisition of citizenship by election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts showing
exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of election of Philippine
citizenship. Hence, respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention
of the court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship when clearly she has
failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. As we held in Ching,[28] the
prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious
and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with
the nearest civil registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing
requirements, respondent’s petition before the trial court must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April

3, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3 of Baguio City in Spcl. Pro. Case
No. 17-R is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for judicial
declaration of election of Philippine citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe
Sagun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 27-32. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan.
[2]
Records, pp. 1- 4.
[3]
Id. at 60.
[4]
Id. at 7.
[5]
Id. at 8.
[6]
Id. at 28.
[7]
Rollo, p. 32.
[8]
Id. at 59.
[9]
Id. at 43-44.
[10]
Id. at 48-49.
[11]
Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 410, 420.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[13]
Yung Uan Chu v. Republic, No. L-34973, April 14, 1988, 159 SCRA 593, 597; Board of Commissioners v.
Domingo, No. L-21274, July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 661, 664.
[14]
Id. at 598; Tan v. Republic of the Philippines, 107 Phil. 632, 634 (1960).
[15]
Id. at 597.
[16]
Supra note 14 at 633; Republic v. Maddela, Nos. L- 21664 and L- 21665, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 702,
705.
[17]
Sec. 1(3), Art. III, 1973 Constitution.
[18]
Sec. 1(3), Art. IV, 1987 Constitution.
[19]
Re: Application For Admission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1,
1999, 316 SCRA 1, 7-8.
[20]
Go, Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 167569-70 and 171946, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 266, 294-295.
[21]
Id. at 295.
[22]
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN,
approved on June 7, 1941.
[23]
Ma v. Fernandez, Jr., G.R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 566, 577.
[24]
Ronaldo P. Ledesma, AN OUTLINE OF PHILIPPINE IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
LAWS, Vol. I, 2006 ed., pp. 526.
[25]
Id. at 527, citing Memorandum Order dated August 18, 1956 of the CID.
[26]
Id., citing DOJ Opinion No. 182 dated August 19, 1982.
[27]
Re: Application For Admission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching, supra note 19 at 9; Ma v.
Fernandez, Jr., supra note 23 at 578.
[28]
Id. at 12.
!